Talk:Occupy movement/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


Why is there nothing about the majority who oppose the Occupy movement? Nothing about the illegal actions? The Anti-Semeitism? The lost jobs? The people who have exposed the lies or the view that the occupy movement is more of an entitlement demand than an economic justice?```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basil rock (talkcontribs) 14:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the anti Semetism of Occupy, I'd like to put this on the main page as there is no mention right now. rock (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We do need more than an article in the flagship of neoconservatism for a source. BeCritical 00:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What would you accept if I get Fox News or WSJ will that be acceptible. I could complain about Media Matters which seems to be accepted on Wikipedia even that is a George Soros sponsered hit squad.Basil rock (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Another source you can deny Fox as a legitimate source, rock (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The Soros rumor turned out to be just that. We need more than Fox News (and blog) accusations for an article as broad as this. Gandydancer (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Fox News is the leading U.S cable news source. It is a legitimate source far more than some of the accepted ones.Unless I get a real argument why I will post. Not Fox News is bad.Basil rock (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Even were it well sourced and current, and even if there weren't sources refuting it, this is the Movement article, and your source is about Occupy Wall Street. So no, it's not acceptable here. BeCritical 21:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
@Basil Rocks, just as a fyi, Editor Yachtsman1 is working on a comprehensive Criticism of the Occupy Movement article which we can link to from this article once its ready for release to mainspace. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks interesting [1], and will be interested to see the reaction when in mainspace. A better forum to discuss what's appropriately sourced than the OWS article. BeCritical 20:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Fox News is a popular news source, but that doesn't make it accurate. They have argued in court that they have the right to lie and deceive in a news broadcast, and they won. (See Jane Akre and Steve Wilson) They also played a quote from Joe Biden ("The fundamentals of the economy are strong") out of context claiming it to be his position, when in fact Biden was quoting John McCain. They were caught publishing a February 10 press release issued by the Senate Republican Communications Center as their own research, complete with a typo left intact. Fox News has had several Republican presidential candidates and aspirants on their payroll as commentators (Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin) and no similar arrangements with Democrats that I'm aware of. There have been multiple cases of Republican politicians being mislabeled as Democrats when charged with crimes or corruption. I could go on. PubliusDigitus (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a criticsm section on most pages, I'll double check but that would include the Tea Party. It should be part of the main article.Basil rock (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised there wasn't an overall criticism section in this article. The movement hasn't been well received by all and has been tainted with crime and indecency. I know much applies to the U.S. but it should be covered in this article.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
There is already a fair ammount criticism in the article - we've tried to integrate it into the relevant parts rather than have a dedicated sub section, which is often considered best practice for out premier articles like FA & GA. But a lot of you seem to want a Criticism section, so from me at least no objection if one of you creates it. If you want to add in the more extreme claims like calling the movement anti semetic, please consider including these more reasonable sources NY Times , WashingtonPost which show the widespread participation by Jews, with Jewish writers themselves saying they experience no anti semitism at all, and that any occurrences will be isolated flashes not representative of the overall movement. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
If Commentary (magazine) is cited, the adjective Neoconservatism (see wp article) would be helpful. (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Amazing how, in the Tea Party entry, we are given a detailed account of every single racial epithet that was allegedly spoken (even though no evidence has ever been produced and the NY Times actually retracted its claims that such slurs were uttered in the Andre Carson incident)yet the OWS entry is almost completely devoid of any mention of the rampant anti-semitism that has been reported on by a multitude of news sources. And contrary to what a particular commenter claims, no "we" don't need more than Fox News as a source for a particular claim. I hate to burst your bubble, but Fox News is a reliable source on this site, whether you like it or not. I made a similar comment in another section after the same commenter, Gandydancer, made an equally asinine claim that Fox News was not an acceptable source of information on OWS. The justifications that particular commenter has provided in regards to every new source backing charges of criminal activity and anti-semitism are so ridiculous they are almost surreal. And since an above commenter has linked to a Washington Post blog concerning the charges of anti-semitism, I will now do the same: Sorry, but the accusations of "anti-semetism"(to the use the spelling of a particular commenter) are not "extreme" and they deserve as much mention in this entry as similar accusations do in the Tea Party entry. If every supposed utterance of a racial epithet is included with excruciating detail in the Tea Party entry, then the issue of anti-semitism deserves similar treatment when discussing the Occupy movement. And please spare us the "it was some dude who happened to wander into the protest" bullsh*t line, because that seems to be the excuse for every single criminal or anti-semitic act that has been committed at those "protests". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

David Graeber

I'm new to this article, but looking it over I'm surprised that there's no mention of David Graeber at all, since he was central to the original planning of OWS and has been a prominent, informed commentator on the movement. Out of curiosity, is there a specific reason for this? Like I said, I haven't worked on this article before so I'd hesitate to make any changes to the text without sounding out consensus on this, but it seems like he'd be worth a mention. I've (tentatively) added an article of his to the further reading section; a couple more useful pieces are here: [2] [3]. Sindinero (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading his Wikipedia article it seems like it could be worth including something. Feel free to put some words together. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I'll give it a stab in the next couple days. Sindinero (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Major cleanup, size and scope of this article and related articles (ows talk page)

Hello everyone, the occupy wall street article is going through cleanup. We're asking basic questions about the boundaries between these two articles:

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is a protest movement that began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption and the undue influence of corporations on government—particularly from the financial services sector. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing income inequality and wealth distribution in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population. OWS was initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters and has led to Occupy protests and movements around the world.

As you can see right off the first sentence, there is obfuscation whether or not "occupy wall street" is a movement, or if it refers to the zuccotti park encampment, or if it includes paying churches to let homeless people sleep in their pews. (see here) Before we correct the inconsistencies across wikipedia about the boundaries between this movement article and the ows article, we must first have wikipedia-wide consensus of how to treat the two articles. The media sources themselves have been inconsistent, but I've opined that we place greater emphasis on more recent sources rather than 2011 sources. To think prophylactically, we're headed in the direction of how things like occupy oakland are going to be renegade from the occupy movement, and whether or not to include them as part of the occupy movement when they do stuff that the nycga tells them not to. There are no right or wrong answers, because the movement is so autonomous, leaderless, and organic. It won't be easy to fit "occupy cityxyz" into a "box" and be able to educate our readers of the difference between a particular occupied city, verses the overall movement. I'll chime in with my own comments later on, because I've had contact with several people outside of Wikipedia who are also concerned about the lack of clarity, especially with new leadership changes (business affinity group, occupy money group, and interoccupy) which will dramatically rebrand the movement's message. We as Wikipedian editors should be the first to be able to understand how to classify the movement against its "occupied cities" and how to delineate the movement from its cities. Later on, the creation of the nycga article will allow information to be shifted, especially as "goals" may vary city by city, but the nycga still has the last word on everything. 완젬스 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I find the last sentence of this post to be very problematic. Each Occupy GA is autonomous. The NYCGA does not have the "last word on everything" pertaining to the movement. Saying such paints the perception that the NYCGA is the "leader" of a leaderless movement. It must remain clear that each location decides for themselves what their focus and actions should be. While some occupations work together at times, it still is a case of "location A deciding to work with location B on a particular action." This does not mean that one location is leader over the others. InfinityCircle (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point of what I'm trying to elucidate. You and I have fundamental disagreement of what is the mainstream perception as covered by Reliable Sources covering the movement. Additionally, I can assure you that the people in charge have the legal stuff going in their favor, especially if push comes to shove, and nycga has to reign in occupy oakland and some of the various renegade factions. Can I ask if you have personal, off-wiki familiarity with the occupy money group & business affinity group? Have you read this article? and do you have strong opinion either way on this issue? The nycga is in full-blown takeover mode for establishing cohesion, which of course will create changes to both articles if or when they succeed. Even before that happens, the articles are inconsistent with one another and need fixing, even if it's before any major changes take place. 완젬스 (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all I, like many do not consider most of what the MSM writes to be a credible source, as they tend to pick and choose who they choose to interview, thus spinning it with their particular brand of thinking. My sources tend to mainly be the independent media from within the movement itself. I have contacts in dozens of cities around the world that report on the movement daily. Thanks for the article, it's interesting, though I don't particularly trust the NY Times brand for fair and open reporting. The main stream media is after all controlled by those that the Occupy Movement is focusing on. I am always open to different perspectives however, as by sharing perspectives consensus may form, as long as parties are open to truly attempting to understand. On a side note: I don't see anyone being able to "reign in Occupy Oakland" or any other occupy groups at this point. Each Occupy tends to focus on what effects them directly, it's been that way from the start. Oakland focus is on police brutality for good reason. That being said, I don't always agree with their tactics, I am simply stating I understand the "why" of it. I guess it would be fair to say I am an independent journalist as well, if that helps you to understand where I am coming from. I run a livestream channel that is dedicated to education & support for the movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfinityCircle (talkcontribs) 22:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasoned, well thought response. I agree with you that every news source wants to represent themselves as the authority of news, and be the most accurate source. This bias they have blinds them from alternative viewpoints, which is why we at Wikipedia try to gather information from as many sources possible (except for clear propaganda machines like FNC) while even cautiously allowing blogs to be used as sources as well. I'm sure if you read the talk pages of both articles under consideration, you'll find exactly the openness and tolerance you preach of. Now let me ask a direct question about the issue--if we have multiple independent journalists who all say "nycga is the leadership body of the occupy movement" and if we have 1-2 news articles which contradict that, and 40-50 bloggers on each side of the debate also, then what do you think is the best job Wikipedia can do for its readers? Do we overstep our role as editors and start invoking WP:Truth prematurely? 완젬스 (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


It's dead in the UK, & according to timeline article last us camps evicted on 3rd. (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're talking about the encampments, not the movement. There continue to be demonstrations, marches, and general assembly meetings in multiple locations. Also, this probably belongs in the previously existing "Ongoing?" section rather than creating a new one. PubliusDigitus (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Weird, I really didn't see the previous section. I guess ya have a point, the title is 'movement', which could keep going for decades, but the article reads very much about the camps. Perhaps needs a past tense rewrite for some sections, or something in the lead. Actually I've just seen the 'facebook communities' part of the lead, gonna be bold. (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
After repeated captcha crap, "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error."

And in the process my attempted changes have been lost. It gets harder and harder to edit anonymously. Basically I removed the meetup communities line (a no brainer IMO, no decent source, non notable, misleading, undue weight), and used sources from the timeline to mention that most camps are now gone. (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If indeed it is dead, are there any sources that say that UK camps have disbanded and stopped protesting? If so these sources can be added and the information cited. --ProfPolySci45 (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually it's sources for it being ongoing, wiki doesn't/shouldn't ask to prove a negative....newspapers rarely report or even notice when the last person gets bored and goes home, protests aren't assumed to continue indefinately. (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Where might this be most useful?

... ? (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Together, We All Occupy, InterOccupy and the Federated General Assembly (OWS) pooled/scrubbed/verified our data and created a Drupal-based directory with over 1300 individual nodes (occupy locations) around the world. The site went live on Feb 10. The dataset is curated by some of the original data collectors and is updated daily (soon to be updated in real-time by crowdsourcing, so it's a moving(but validated) target. I'm the bottom liner on data integrity...just wondering if we can work together OR how I might get the data into Wikipedia. Cyberinga (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


I just had to remove from the lead something along the lines of 'police have arrested thousands of people and 24 have been killed'. I further note that the 24 deaths are numbered in the infopanel....should this be reconsidered? Listing every heart attack or whatever in the same style deaths are listed in conflict more than a little dodgy. (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So are crimes, yet we do, If they were there and they died. Mention it.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You could create a section for these things if you take offense to where they are currently listed. --ProfPolySci45 (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


This article lacks a critism section. A very large one, for that manner. Occupy does not have a good track record, and it doesnt even have a critism section. WTH. Bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Mentlegen (talkcontribs) 00:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that this is just the umbrella article. There are nearly 100 articles on the "Occupy" movement and many of those articels include sections on criticism or controversies. See Category:Occupy movement and its subcategories. However the ideal is not to have criticism and controversy segregated in separate sections, but rather to have the material integrated in the article. Just because there isn't a "criticism" section doesn't mean an article doesn't include criticism.   Will Beback  talk  08:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with what Will's saying, but lots of editors have asked for a criticism section over the past few months. There's quite a lot of positive stuff to add to this article about the movement's global impact, but as we seem a little lite on criticism Im hesitating to do so for NPOV reasons. Editor Yachtsman1 has a good criticism article in his user space. He seems to have semi retired but he says he's happy for me to move the article into mainspace. Does anyone else object to me doing this? I wont if there are any further objections, but if none come up in the next week or so and no one else makes a criticism section, I'll promote the dedicated article and create a small summary criticism section in this article to link to it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections are normally only demanded by people opposed to the subject of an article. That, by definition, is a POV position to take. They should be avoided like the plague. HiLo48 (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Creation and merger of US Occupy movement/protest articles

I would like to propose the creation of either Occupy movement (US) or Occupy movement (California) (latter as example of state by state articles) and begin merging smaller articles as a rescue effort and clean up of Occupy articles. I honestly believe the situation with Occupy is beginning to be an issue we should deal with ourselves as editors. I also propose that we begin building Wikipedia: Wikiproject Occupy movement to centralize discussion of individual articles and attempt to remain within guidelines and policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Project idea gained support a while back. Here is the thread.[4]--Amadscientist (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement

I am moving forward with the Project within the recommended guidelines. The proposal has been made and listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. The discussion page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Occupy movement. You may add your name to the "support" list and add comments for discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger of Anarchism and the Occupy movement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Nearly two weeks have past since the merger was proposed. The consensus is clearly against merger. SupernovaExplosion Talk 19:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I propose merging the newly created Anarchism and the Occupy movement into this article per WP:CFORK. While David Graeber's anarchism is mentioned here, the claim that the Occupy movement "has its roots on the philosophy of anarchism" strikes me as something that would be best resolved here. Gobōnobo + c 23:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose If this article had no greater scope than to be a content fork, I would support a merger in a heartbeat. However, with the preponderance of potential sources, this merger would either stifle the topic to fit the confines of this article, or cause the article to grow to excessive size. Instead, we should use summary form to cover the topic lightly here, and provide a "Template:Main" link to Anarchism and the Occupy movement. --Cast (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. We don't go on "potential" sources. We go on what we have, now, and at present, there just isn't enough for its own article. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's a natural break-out article from this already very long article (and which is actually capable of great expansion based on events to date, let alone future events).Rangoon11 (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Changes to the lede

Due to the massive worldwide importance of Occupy, its important we keep the lede reasonably up to date so it reflects the movment's progress. Untill I made a much needed update to the article last week, the lede had remained essentially the same for over 3 months, failing to capture events for the second half of the movement's development. Bizarrely, my changes have been largely reverted, with an edit summary saying the claim that the last high profile camp has been cleared is uncited and incorrect!

In fact this FT article ,already at the end of the applicable lede paragraph, says: "tearing down the last remaining high-profile tent city of the worldwide Occupy movement." It was claimed that the Finsbury park camp is high profile. In my experience even fellow Londoners often don't know about the Finsbury camp. To claim it counts as high profile in the context of an article on the global movement seems extraordinary. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The lead is now rather a mess and contains some claims which are dubious and subjective. Of course it should be kept up to date, but it should not attempt to offer a detailed running timeline on the whole movement. It should also have a logical structure and care should be taken to keep it from bloating.
"Although most popular in the United States" - this is an uncited claim which I take issue with, proportionate to population Occupy has been roughly as active in the UK.
"The last remaining high profile camps - at Washington DC and at St Pauls Cathredal in London - were cleared in February 2012" - this is dubious. For me Finsbury Park is high profile, it is right in the middle of the City of London.
The last three paragraphs now do not follow a logical order, jumping backwards and forwards in time and overlapping.
And despite the length of the lead - it is now at what I would deem the maximum appropriate length - it doesn't mention important topics such as general assemblies, the 15 October 2011 global protests, or the impact of the movement.
I'm very happy for us to work together on improving the lead. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Id be very happy to work with you too, two minds are better than one with big topics like this and you obviously done lots of good work on the article. As you say there's no space for a detailed timeline, but we probably can afford a couple of lines to outline the overall trajectory of the movement – hugely popular and largely unopposed in the fall; authorities starting to adopt a hard line from mid Nov; participation dropping of in winter but picking up again in spring; a shift towards more activies and events but less camping...
London seems to have been the most active location outside of America; NewYork is only about 2.5 times as populated but seems to have had well over 10 times as much activity. I think the point about Occupy being most popular in the US is correct – that's where a movement to address inequality is most needed. Still as you say some details need to be trimmed to make room for the important aspects you mentioned, so I guess you could remove that part if you really don't like it. I agree Finsbury Squ is high profile within Occupy, but not in the quality independent sources, the wider media or in public consciousness. As Im very interested in Occupy I've been asking most folks I know what they think about it – after the St Pauls clearance I had several asking if I was gutted now Occupy London had ended. With our Occupy London article, there were several attempts to say the occupation was over until I edited the article to prominently mention the Finsbury camp in the lede and added a pic. (BTW this guardian article has some great pics of the Finsubury camp, though they also show how tiny it is) St Pauls is world famous – as you say Finsbury Squ is in central London but its on the outskirts of the city, even many Londoners haven't heard of it. The St Paul camp was often talked about in major US media outlets, there seems to be very little coverage of Fin Sq. in the international press.
I agree with all your other points, I think at least para 2 & 3 would benefit from a complete rewrite along the lines you suggested. Do you want to have the first crack at it or shall I? FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The 15 October 2011 global protests should be included in the lede. Gandydancer (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the slight delay. I think that the three of us are generally on the same page with regards to Occupy, perhaps with some slight differences of emphasis. I will try and prepare a draft of an updated lead and post it here for discussion in the next few days. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know anything about London, but the lead was a mess and I reverted it quite a way. There were sources which were not RS used for very dubious claims[5] [6]. BeCritical 02:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Or you could just make the changes direct if you wish, as you say I dont think there's any major contention here. I dont mind if none of my original wording survives as long as theres some sort of brief summary for events of the movements 2nd half. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Judith Butler

Granted she's a fairly notable person, but this is a blog (used here). But the main thing is that she said

"People have asked, so what are the demands? What are the demands all of these people are making? Either they say there are no demands and that leaves your critics confused, or they say that the demands for social equality and economic justice are impossible demands. And the impossible demands, they say, are just not practical. If hope is an impossible demand, then we demand the impossible — that the right to shelter, food and employment are impossible demands, then we demand the impossible. If it is impossible to demand that those who profit from the recession redistribute their wealth and cease their greed, then yes, we demand the impossible." [7]

This means she knows that they actually do have articulated demands, and that kind of contradicts the article diff above. We may be quoting her out of context, and I thought I'd raise the question. BeCritical 07:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that in the passage you cite she's actually exploring an internal logic to political demands as such; namely, that these seemingly basic demands are actually impossible within the current system that has produced these inequalities, and demanding them is tantamount to demanding the dismantling of the system itself (not making particular, fulfill-able demands of it). This is a critique that is, in my opinion, not contradicted but rather deepened in this text, where she writes:
"If we think that there are adequate resources within the current economic regime to fix these problems, then, we make an odd assumption. We assume that the very system that has produced the inequality that characterizes all the items on the list can serve as the recipient of our demands. [...] But when a company, corporation, or state is not considered a legitimate partner for negotiation, then it makes no sense to appeal to that authority for a negotiated settlement. In fact, to appeal to that authority to satisfy the demand would be one way of attributing legitimacy to that authority. So articulating demands that can be satisfied depends fundamentally on the attribution of legitimacy to those who have the power to satisfy the demands. And when one ceases to direct demands to those authorities, as happens in the general strike, then it is the illegitimacy of those authorities that is exposed. [...] But if those existing institutions are complicit with the economic regime that depends upon, and furthers, the reproduction of inequality, then one cannot appeal to those institutions to bring about an end to the conditions of inequality. Such an appeal would defeat itself in the course of its articulation. Simply put, the appeal or demand that sought to be satisfied by the existing state, global monetary institutions, or corporations, national or transnational, would be giving more power to the very sources of inequality, and in that way aiding and abetting the reproduction of inequality itself."
I don't think there's a WP:RS problem here; a blog can be used to demonstrate the fact that the writer holds a given opinion, right? Sindinero (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Then maybe we should have something like "Judith Butler stated that Occupy is a response to problems of inequality which were created by current social institutions, and addressing demands to those same institutions would be useless." I know that only hits the highest point, but it's something. BeCritical 07:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
That's not bad, but I'd object to "useless" - that would usually be read as "futile," "without effect," which isn't her argument; it's actually counterproductive and self-defeating, in her view. I also think it's important to include some mention of the question of legitimacy, since legitimizing the structures of power is the crux of her opposition to making demands. And as a last point, although this is more of a minor quibble, her critique is a broad structural one; thus it's not just isolated social institutions that happen to create inequality (like banks, or an electoral system), but the broader "economic regime" that actually necessitates inequality (see the last paragraph). In other words, her critique is not a liberal one, but a radically anti-capitalist one, and it might be useful to choose language that conveys this (without spelling it out in needless detail, of course). Sindinero (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
"Judith Butler stated that Occupy is a response to problems of inequality which were necessarily created by our current social structure and institutions, and addressing demands to those same institutions would be self-defeating, and would in fact empower and legitimize them." BeCritical 07:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Works for me. Do you think it's best to have a separate sentence for Butler and Graeber, then? When I inserted the original formulation I was trying to come up with something short that would adequately represent both of their (very similar) positions. Sindinero (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Separate sentences. BTW, I haven't really checked the sources, I haven't heard of Butler before and don't know how notable she is. I'm mainly playing with the text here, but have no objection to inclusion myself. BeCritical 07:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Butler should be included. Incidentally, I removed Graeber by mistake earlier thinking he was individual we had in our early OWS article when we had very few sources to go with - he was a protester whose claim to fame was that he'd been interviewed by the Guardian. Gandydancer (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Upton Sinclair, historical context

Intriguing piece in The Nation for anyone interested in giving these Occupy articles more historical context: "When Upton Sinclair's '99 Percent' Movement Sparked the Birth of the Modern Election Campaign" [8] about Upton Sinclair's political influence in the 1930's. El duderino (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I could try to incorporate that into the article. It sounds like what Howard Zinn wrote in his chapter of A People's History of the United States:
"Against the reality of that desperate, bitter battle for resources made scarce by elite control, I am taking the liberty of uniting those 99 percent as "the people." I have been writing a history that attempts to represent their submerged, deflected, common interest. To emphasize the commonality of the 99 percent, to declare deep enmity of interest with the 1 percent, is to do exactly what the governments of the United States, and the wealthy elite allied to them-from the Founding Fathers to now-have tried their best to prevent...With the Establishment's inability either to solve severe economic problems at home or to manufacture abroad a safety valve for domestic discontent, Americans might be ready to demand not just more tinkering, more reform laws, another reshuffling of the same deck, another New Deal, but radical change...The prospect is for times of turmoil, struggle, but also inspiration. There is a chance that such a movement could succeed in doing what the system itself has never done-bring about great change with little violence. This is possible because the more of the 99 percent that begin to see themselves as sharing needs, the more the guards and the prisoners see their common interest, the more the Establishment becomes isolated, ineffectual. The elite's weapons, money, control of information would be useless in the face of a determined population...The new fact of our era is the chance that they [those currently rebelling] may be joined by the guards. We readers and writers of books have been, for the most part, among the guards. If we understand that, and act on it, not only will life be more satisfying, right off, but our grandchildren, or our great grandchildren, might possibly see a different and marvelous world."[9]
-- (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

My recent revert

Re this revert: Here's what I want to suggest, which is more in accord with Wikipedia process: You seem to have some good sources, but you're using them wrong. You have the material for a history section for this article. It can also be incorporated into owws, as part of the origins section. After that is done, then it's the right time to incorporate it into the lead. How about that? BeCritical 04:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so. I tried to rework it the second time, but that got rejected as well... I'll try to work it in there. That sounds good. I'm sort of new to wikipedia, so the edits may not always be the best. But I still never edited the mainstay of the article because most of it was pretty good... Thanks for the advice. -- (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well just put it here on the talk page and I'll try to help you with it if you like (: Also, try to get a username, that helps so we can know you as an online identity. It provides continuity. BeCritical 04:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there is some interesting information here that will help with our understanding of how the movement was coming together before it hit the national news. Great find anon, and I hope you get a username as well. Gandydancer (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Project Occupy

WP OWS Logo.svg WP:OCCUPY or WP:OWS or WP:99%.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Article update

Article needs an update to remove dead links.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Rtnews template

I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap 03:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


I think we can now clearly add Violence as a characteristic of the movement. Arzel (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you joking? Try to keep the POV pushing to a minimum. The sloppy, ignorant screed you wish to suggest as a reliable source seems to classify as an editorial, at best, and ends by praising the tea party. Not the best source, perhaps. And if you dug into the bridge thing a little more, you might see that the plot was essentially assembled by the FBI, using a recently favored tactic of theirs.[10] The people arrested are apparently immature and full of bravado, but before the FBI got involved, it seems the limit of their terrorist machinations amounted to smoke bombs and minor property damage (destroying signs). I think you'll need stronger sourcing and evidence than this, but it's good to know where your interest in this topic is coming from... Sindinero (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
If you have a deaths/injuries category, how does it not qualify as violent protest? Feel free to keep the nonviolent protest, but certainly some of the Occupy movements (such as Oakland) have been violent. Deerekid1 (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
It's a fair question. First of all, the link to "Nonviolent protests" is listed as a characteristic of the movement. Ignoring the fact that WP doesn't actually have an article on "violent protests," and thus the fact that your change created a redlink, sources would have to be provided to show that violence is in fact a defining characteristic of the occupy movement. Violence can happen in many ways: there can be violence by some protesters towards others that is incidental to the actual demonstrations and occupations, there can be violence by the police towards the protesters, there can be isolated acts of property destruction or violence by protesters towards police. Much of this violence wouldn't change the presumed character of occupy as non-violent (for example, if the police beat demonstrators this would have no bearing on the fact that the demonstration itself was non-violent; this was the case in many civil rights marches). To characterize a given movement as violent, strong sources are needed. Sindinero (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Moscow

is now (finally) getting some serious media coverage and more than deserves a mention here - these people are risking their lives for freedom: [11]. (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Could anyone please add paragraph on "Occupy Abai" in Moscow? Regretfully I'm not so fluent with English to do it myself.
Fedorkov Dmitry (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Since May Day

More stuff has happened since May Day, why isn't it covered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworldisbig (talkcontribs) 14:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


The template says the protests are still ongoing. However in the past four months there has been only one protest. We should either remove the word "ongoing" or replace it with something else. Pass a Method talk 21:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That is original research. You should stick to references only when making claims. Where are your references for these claims?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The onus is on you to prove that the protest is still ongoing', not me. YOU should provide a reference. Pass a Method talk 01:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
There are countless articles indicating that the protests are not ongoing:,0,7439790.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ongoing?

The movement has been going on since September 17th, and protest and meetings have been held everyday. As long as actions are planned in the future and are being active right now, it should remain it's ongoing status.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexf505 (talkcontribs) 02:23, 8 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Walked into a Hornets Nest

...intentionally, of course. Need your guys' help. I have added sections to the Political Activity section of this article Koch family that is being hotly contested by conservative Tea-Partiers. Its creating more work than I could have ever imagined. I have to argue down repeated re-visitation of the same arguments by different users over and over and over again. And one user that acts like an attorney, where, if one argument doesn't work, well then, he'll just try another, and another, and another. I've asked for the article to be protected so this can all be discussed on the talk page, but all that did was get more attention focused on the article by what appear to be conservative "Citation BOTs". Help!!! LoL! --XB70Valyrie (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My edit starts like this and is the whole paragraph... "The Koch brothers contributed $20.5 million to political interests in 2008. Koch Industries employs at least 30 government lobbyists...."--XB70Valyrie (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A relatively small group of occupiers successfully occupied Harbourside Park in St John's Newfoundland for the entire 2012 Winter season. quote from wikiarticle

Is wikipedia becoming clairvoyant? On the basis of a linear time contraint I would question such assertions as unfounded and in need of editing. Yogiadept (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Changing the Financial System in Britain

Hi - I need your help. I have set up an e-petition at – which should be self-explanatory. Many, many people both here and abroad are having their lives ruined by government austerity measures. They are losing their jobs and homes, Young people are facing years of unemployment with no hope and no prospects of escaping from economic hardship. The volume of misery, depression and lack of hope is enormous. As I understand it, it is basically because bankers allowed greed to cloud their judgement so that they took risks which failed. They then ran out of money, and because, they are apparently an indispensable part of our system, “we” were forced to bail them out. Our governments thereby are in financial trouble, so they have to cut spending, creating a financial crisis which is blighting the lives of millions who were in no way to blame for the problem. The person-in-the-street sees: • the bankers still living well, receiving large salaries and obscenely large bonuses, in reality untouched by the crisis • politicians apparently unable to deal with the situation except to offer austerity with no sign of any beneficial economic outcome • the leaders of nations without any idea of a solution, lurching from one emergency summit meeting to the next • that they are totally trapped while a range of shadowy figures make millions, if not billions of pounds speculating in the “market.” He or she does not understand: • why they are suffering while the people who were responsible for the mess are untouched • where the money the banks lost has gone? Who has got it? Why can’t we get it back? • what are the “markets” that seem to control the whole system. Who runs them? Is it just a few people? • why there can’t be a better way. There is not a lot going on to tackle any of the root causes. There are some initiatives like regulating banks. Although this is a good step, it does nothing to help relieve the misery. I want to force the government to start an investigation to see if there is a better basic system to insulate the person-in-the-street from mistakes made in the financial markets. This should involve a root and branch examination – not just a tinkering with regulation. If this involves international co-operation then so be it. The present system is inequitable and evil. There must be a better way. If there really is no better system then politicians should come clean and explain that the lack of hope, the misery and the extreme inequality will remain and that they are impotent to do anything about it. I need 100,000 signatures to have a chance of forcing some action – this may seem a lot but if I can galvanise the unions, the action groups, the labour and liberal parties, and so on, it should be possible, but I also want as many “ordinary” folk to sign and to encourage others. I have no idea what could emerge. Maybe I am being over-optimistic that we can do achieve some change. I think, it is worth a go and I hope that you do too. Gordon Blackwell GRBlackwell (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


This doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, it reads like a manifesto for the orginaization itself. The comments immediately above are a perfect example. Get more objective!

Yeah the nonviolence section should be removedIrishfrisian (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Israel

I haven't been able to work out why the Israel section was removed in these edits by The addition to the Hong Kong section above is uncited as well. --Nigelj (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Off topic

weird huh? the article i wrote about occupy cleveland was removed as well, why? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Toasty (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Toasty, i know friend, weird right? Several RS reported several different notable events planned by the group including the blockade of a neighborhood to protest foreclosures. A city councilman is actually mentioned as a member of occupy cleveland, a very rare case in occupy movement, yet because of the WMD plot, the article was deemed to be "negative", so nothing may be published about the very real group. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Political reactions implausible

The section on "Reactions" / "Political" cannot be representative of what is going on. Reading it, I get the impression that world leaders tend to support the movement - Obama for instance. This is just plain illogical - they are on opposite sides. This needs to be better constructed to reflect reality. (Also, Iran should not be first - I think they are meant to be Alphabetical - I wonder if someone put it there deliberately to influence readers: Iran = bad... Iran agrees with Occupy... therefore Occupy = bad.) (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"Reality" on Wikipedia means supported by sources. The article says that Obama "spoke in support," which is exactly what he did. He probably speaks in support of many things that will bring him campaign money, votes, political power, etc. The occupy movement speaks in support of whatever will let their supporters pretend that they are not a few centuries late to this discussion. There are no "sides," because this is not Star Wars. There are just objectives, actions and rhetorical constructions. Grow up, and find a source that shows Obama actually opposing the occupy movement. (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the original funding for the Occupy Wall Street movement was provided primarily by donations from those with well above the median income. Their funding is now provided by wealthy businessmen. What does their "side" look like now? (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC) The nonviolence section is innacurate and should probaly be removedIrishfrisian (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

wmd plot

two editors blanked a well sourced widely reported/discussed crime committed by an occupy movement member. Darkstar1st (talk)

The plot had no connection to Occupy. Some of the individuals concerned were allegedly connected to Occupy in some way prior to the plot (along with quite a few million others). If you seriously think that a whole section in this article on this minimally relevant issue, replete with with a hysterical section heading, is appropriate then that is concerning. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
From the cited source, "The five had been associated with Occupy Cleveland,[by whom?] but organizers of the movement [...] say the five didn't represent it or its nonviolent philosophy." This is an article about a worldwide movement, and I think those who want to add this need to have a look at WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not [...]" Here we have one mention of an unattributed viewpoint that an otherwise un-heard-of person might have "been associated" with Occupy, while Occupy deny it. That does not make it onto the radar in an article about a worldwide movement involving probably hundreds of thousands of actual members, and thousands or tens of thousands of documented events. When dozens of sources unanimously describe this guy as a representative of Occupy, then he gets his own sentence or paragraph here, let alone a whole section. Undue weight. --Nigelj (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
they signed the lease, which makes them founders of the chapter, and most certainly due. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
A story like "Known criminal commits crime" in a local newspaper does not make an international impact unless lots of independent international media say it does. Produce the links to all the European, Australian and other worldwide media saying that this arrest has had any effect of the Occupy movement that is notable in regard to the evolution of the worldwide movement itself. This is not a place for local news, even if some US political activists may want to try to blow it out of all proportion. --Nigelj (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and it is in my view just as important that, so far as we are aware, the plot itself had absolutely no connection to Occupy, it was not sanctioned by any Occupy related organisation, nor even done in the name of Occupy.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
the reliable sources stated the plotters were members of the movement, how is this plot not connected? 5 people accused of a crime just happen to belong to the same tiny movement? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It might also be worth pointing out that this sort of FBI-manufactured 'plot' is precisely what used to be called "entrapment." Sindinero (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Under UK law, there would certainly be a lot of questions to ask about when this individual decided that he wanted to blow up a bridge, and what effects on that decision were made by his new 'friends' (the FBI) offering to sell him large quantities of what they said were explosives. One wonders how many hundreds or thousands of other people the FBI had to offer cheap explosives to (people the FBI thought could later be made to look like they were associated with Occupy?) before they found one willing to accept them? When we find enough reliable sources that discuss all these aspects on a US-wide or worldwide basis, then we'll have a story worth adding to this or the Occupy movement in the United States article. --Nigelj (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not relevant to this article or to Occupy movement in the United States and the article "Occupy Cleveland" was deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Cleveland.) TFD (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It appears that just one editor is very keen to maximise the WP coverage of this single Huffington Post paragraph.[12] Perhaps a re-reading of WP:Consensus would help? How about providing some more references that discuss in a balanced way the links between this man or this bridge, the FBI, and the global Occupy movement? Don't forget, per WP:BLP that one person has pleaded guilty, but that the other accused are awaiting trial - no one is legally a plotter or a conspiracist in any crime until a court of law says they are, and WP:BLP most certainly applies to talk pages and to edit summaries as well. --Nigelj (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
i will be happy to supply more sources if we do not agree on the fact 5 were arrested for the alleged crime, and had all attended the occupy protest in cleveland, and one signed the lease for the occupy cleveland hq. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Gosh, better have a look at WP:5P too! You're not here to negotiate by withholding the sources that support your proposed edit until I agree with your personal views! --Nigelj (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
no, i want to make sure i submit a source that specifically addresses your concern. exactly which of the above 3 facts is in dispute? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether it happened but whether it is relevant to this article. In my view it is not. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The wp:undue standard argued to exclude this certainly is at the extreme end of the spectrum. At the Tea Party movement article they have a 890 word section on how somebody thinks that somebody in the 30,000 attendees at an event said something racist, and people are saying it should stay. Here they are arguing that 1-2 sentences that 5 occupy folks tried to blow up a bridge (they even flipped the switch) with evidence so solid that they got arrested and indicted (and highly covered) is "wp:undue". This certainly is at the extreme end of the spectrum for interpreting wp:undue. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be little comparison. Firstly, the word 'racist' appears in that article 15 times, all with citations, and peppered throughout the whole second half of the article, not just in the section about the chanting and the tweet. It appears that, like it or not, racism is a topic that many of the sources that cover the US Tea Party movement mention or even dwell upon. There is no such connection in the media or the literature between explosives, bridges, weapons of mass destruction etc and the worldwide Occupy movement. Secondly, the person specifically mentioned there is "Tea Party founder Sonny Thomas". In this case, the person in question was a random Occupy-nobody, let alone its founder. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists seems a poor argument here, wp:undue clearly applies. --Nigelj (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the article it is obvious that the article is being controlled by a "make the occupy movement look good" group. I looks like even the mostly highly covered and directly related negative stuff has been suppressed from the article.
Of course it is. Think about it - even with the countless articles in the news about violent actions taken in Occupy's name (can anyone say Oakland?) the group is still upheld as a "non-violent organization". Of course, with the distribution of editors on Wikipedia, it doesn't surprise me that Occupy is being championed and protected against any sort of criticism. Lithorien (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This statement should be incorporated in the summary text in some format

OWS is a mix of liberals, libertarians, democratic socialists, revolutionary socialists, social democrats, and anarchists with no central ideology. A lot of people do not understand the political nature of this event and attempt to claim fame or smear it with a political classification. Historically I believe this will be looked at as a reactionary movement to give awareness to and open dialogue for the crisis of capitalism, but a minority of OWS protestors are themselves capitalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Status of the Occupy Movement

In the opening paragraph, it reads "The Occupy movement was a protest movement against social and economic inequality, its primary goal being to change the economic structure and power relations in society into what organizers consider to be more fair." I have changed the "was" to "is", additionally, in the info-box on the right of the page, it says it went from "17 September 2011 until - " which I suppose means it is ongoing. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is ongoing. See this news story from NPR for example [13]. Gandydancer (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
It's daid Jim. A Bank of England official has officially blessed the thing. You're dismissed. Maybe try some professionals next time? (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ethical consumerism?

Shouldn't this entry contain a link...somewhere/ ethical consumerism? I was just going to add it to the see also section but was so intrigued by its glaring absence that I decided to bring it up here first. Thoughts? --Xerographica (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

How would you place such a link. Ethical consumerism predated Occupy by decades. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Capitalism also predated Occupy...therefore...? Ethical consumerism either is...or it isn't...relevant to the Occupy movement. From the Occupy Wall Street Movement Strategy on C-span...
Each of us has a finite number of resources. So where are you going to put your resources? Where are you going to put your time and your money? Are you going to put it into trying to elect somebody into this current system that's broken? Or are you going to put that into building something? - Margaret Flowers
The first step in taking our power back is taking our money out of all the commercial banks and moving it into credit unions or community banks. Corporations didn't get big on their own...they got big because we pay them. So change your phone company...put your money where your heart is. - Unknown
There's a 1% who is controlling us. We need justice. It reminds me of the situation in India when the British were in control. How did the Indians do it? How did they get rid of the British? They did it through Gandhi and his Salt March. You're all familiar with his Salt March? He found the one thing in India that they all had in common. They all had to pay a tax on salt. We are told to go out and organize...but around what? We need something to organize around. We need to find that one thing and boycott it to prove our strength...because we are the 99%. - Unknown
It seems really straightforward that ethical consumerism is highly relevant to the Occupy movement. Yet, this really developed entry does not already contain a link to ethical consumerism. So it's a bit of a paradox. That's why I posted here first to see if anybody would be able to resolve it. --Xerographica (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Find us a source that links the two, and we'll have something to work with. HiLo48 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Tax evasion

Perhaps tax evasion can be mentioned in the see also section. Appearantly, large companies sometimes pay only about 2% tax (ie double Irish with a Dutch sandwich method) where the standard rate is about 20 to 40% (depends on country), see Tax Free documentary by Marije Meerman. Since Occuply protests against large companies/incorrect distribution of wealth, it seems relevant to mention it.

Also worth to add would be a link to List_of_minimum_wages_by_country. The fact that developing countries have lower wages means companies are quick to move there, increasing the great recession KVDP (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither one of the above should be mentioned. It is amazing that those sympathetic to this "movement" try to claim it has had an impact on the discussion of every issue under the sun. Also, tax evasion is a crime. Sorry, but you can't just make blanket claims that large corporations are committing felonies because they paid less in taxes than you would like. Moreover, an activist documentary is not what I would call a reliable source, to say the least. Also, what the hell is an "incorrect distribution of wealth"? I was unaware that there was some sort of standard that was factually "correct". (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This page although titled Occupy Movement focuses on early Occupy Wall Street and other location protests and encampments.

What about all the current Occupy Action, issue and project groups (i.e. Occupy Sandy, Strike Debt, Occupy Homes, etc.)?

Should there not be a section dedicated to these Occupy groups with links to the current already existing wiki pages for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnNashua (talkcontribs) 04:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Occupy Movement inclusion of groups other than Occupy Wall Street and encampments.

This page although titled Occupy Movement focuses on early Occupy Wall Street and other location protests and encampments.

What about all the current Occupy Action, issue and project groups (i.e. Occupy Sandy, Strike Debt, Occupy Homes, etc.)?

Should there not be a section dedicated to these Occupy groups with links to the current already existing wiki pages for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnNashua (talkcontribs) 21:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Map is wrong

In Turkey There were protests in more than 10 cities not 1-3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Russian pseudo-offshoots

Here is a Guardian article about homophobic groups in Russia that seem to have appropriated the name of the movement: they call themselves Occupy Paedophilia and Occupy Gerontophilia. Yep, you couldn't make it up. Should they be covered here as 'fake offshoots'? Or a disamb page made? It sounds like the groups should have their own pages soon, perhaps. Malick78 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The end?

On a global level, as of 2011, all individuals with incomes above $34,000 belong to the richest 1%.

I added the following to the article:

On a global level, as of 2011, all individuals with incomes above $34,000 belong to the richest 1%.[1] (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You do realize those statistics are pulled down by averaging in all the third world population, some of whom might make a dollar a day or less and live in mud huts. Global income makes no sense into the localized economy, wherever you are. This is the illogic of the current Tom Perkins argument. We shouldn't put that into a wikipedia article. And it certainly has nothing to do with the Occupy Movement other than to be argumentative toward the movement. Trackinfo (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, of course I realize that it includes all the third world population. What else could possibly be meant by the phrase "on a global level"? The Occupy movement exists on a global level, so we should mention the cutoff point for the 1% at a global level. All wikipedia articles should present reliably sourced information that is relevant to the topic, and then readers may interpret this information however they wish. Readers who wish to dismiss or ignore such information are perfectly free to do so. But to erase such information from a wikipedia article violates everything that wikipedia stands for. (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Three words: purchasing power parity. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Great. Then you can add that to the article. I promise I won't erase it. (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


I was not using this as a forum, I am merely pointing out that the article is incomplete without a section on how/ why it came to a sudden halt. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree--there was nothing wrong with your post. Gandydancer (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
it's obvious that the closing chapter is missing. Also, there seems to be no update for all the countries that on this page claim to still protest.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep present tense....

Let's face it, Occupy Wall Street still has a website up, and I doubt that the movement's core followers are intent on giving up any time soon. (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes keep it present tense as many occupy groups still meet (example and there is even a Occupy National Gathering being planned ( (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Tea Party Inspiration?

I dispute the assertion that a line can be drawn between the Occupy movementas well as the Tea Party movement. The statement cannot be found in sources 26, 27 or 28 so can somebody involved please tell the source of this? The two have radically different objectives, the latter being primarily a right wing movement instigated by the Koch family. If somebody does not respond I will remove the relevent material. KingHiggins (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post disagrees with you. Hot Stop 18:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

there are similar grievances among occupiers and original tea party people (not the AstroTurf-corporate tea party people). HOWEVER it is the actions and views to fix those grievances where Occupy and the TP differ greatly. --Sfiga (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Word for word from the "Criticism" section

Is the following real? Whatever does it mean?

Apart from dismissals by the Right, there have also appreciative criticism from leftist scholars. One such critique concerns itself with the way in which the Occupy movement has focused its demands around a narrowly modern understanding of freedom that differs little from the claims of mainstream liberal pluralism:

“ The modern ideology of freedom ... provides its point of departure. This singular dominance of the modern becomes clear in the long list of demands that follow. Practicality dominates and there is not a single demand for relief from the ontological dominance of modern practices and subjectivities that abstract, codify, rationalize and objectify our lives. Though the ideals and demands ... are laudable, they are not that much different in form from the Millennium Goals of the United Nations.[388] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Attention, Protestors: You're Probably Part of the 1%,, October 28, 2011